Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this opposition day to speak to the opposition motion, which provides:
That this House urge the government to replace the current Members of Parliament Retirement Allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.
I will try to contribute to the debate by offering some food for thought, because I think that the issue of pensions raises considerable concern among Canadians, who ask us many questions on this subject. They ask us these questions because of their perception of members' pensions and benefits.
First of all, the Official Opposition is clearly opposed to the motion as it stands, and I will tell you why. Adjusting pensions in accordance with private-sector standards does not tell us anything about the type of adjustment and the type of private sector.
We wonder if our pensions should reflect the plans established for senior officials and company executives or the already very inadequate pensions collected by some workers in different sectors. The motion does not tell us which way to go. We must do more thinking on the issue and set the conditions in which this reform must take place, before going ahead with such a vaguely worded motion.
It is true that people's perception of members' pensions and benefits is often shaped by the media, which call attention to the significant benefits enjoyed by members of Parliament.
In this regard, we think that the Reform Party's debate on members' pensions should revolve around two extremely important issues.
First of all, the Official Opposition wants to avoid all kinds of double dipping, for example when someone retires after working for the government and then takes another government job, thus accumulating other pensions. I think that, on this, we clearly agree with the other parties that the practice of accumulating multiple pensions must be eliminated.
Our second point is extremely important. Our constituents often bring up the age issue. The matter of pensions must be dealt with fairly and equitably. In this regard, I think that we agree with everyone that the age issue must be reviewed.
May I remind you that one of the Reform Party's election promises was to cut what the party itself calls the three Ps, namely the pay, pensions and privileges of members. That political formation estimates that a significant cut in members' pensions would save around $1.5 million over five years. The approach used is important because members' functions, duties and responsibilities must be considered. I think that dealing
with the issue of members' pensions by cutting government spending is entirely beside the point.
According to Jean Dion, an editorial writer in Le Devoir , cutting members' benefits would, of course, save money. After the election, it was estimated that pensions payable to defeated members totalled $109 million over a period of twenty years or one-quarter of one per cent of the deficit for the financial year 1992-93 alone.
A review of allowances, benefits or pensions payable to parliamentarians should not, in our opinion, be seen as a way to put government finances on a sound footing, as a way to fight the federal deficit or to achieve that great common ideal of fair distribution of wealth in our democracy. We should be realistic and consider the context.
On the issue of pensions, of course pensions and salaries are linked because they are part of the total compensation plan. It would be irresponsible to separate them. I think we should follow certain guidelines when we look at the treatment of members' pensions. We should consider making them commensurate with the responsibility a member has. I think there is a context we must consider. We should be able to take this debate a little further. To all the people who are watching us, to all those who sent us to Parliament to manage the government's affairs, we should be able to explain the responsibilities of a member as such, because once we are elected, the first thing a member has to do is to take on the responsibilities and activities that go with his position.
So we should take a good look at the issue of level of responsibility, because it is a factor throughout our society in every area of activity. A society functions and develops because people in a variety of sectors and organizations, both private and public, are responsible and take on certain responsibilities. We should look at members in the same way, as people who perform tasks with a high level of responsibility.
Account should also be taken of what attracts people to the job of member of Parliament. There is no doubt that most of the people elected to this House are people who want to have a responsibility in how the government is run, who want to make a contribution to society, to help it evolve, to see progress made.
We are talking about members from many different backgrounds, men and women, with a variety of skills and training, who are able to seek office and come here to pool their talents and knowledge with other members. In this context, there must also exist a certain number of conditions that will attract people of quality to political life.
Another factor to be considered is our individual financial independence, our own resources to draw on in carrying out our work, with the expenses that entails, and our independence from outside contributions. We must therefore remember that those elected to office must be able to operate in a context of financial independence.
The question cannot be examined without looking at the fundamental framework. Earlier, I listened to my colleagues as they raised a number of concerns that I share. I would like, on behalf of the official opposition, to reiterate a number of these points that we feel are essential to the debate on whether to reform the pension plan of members of Parliament.
First of all, I think that we are all well aware of the precariousness of the positions we hold. I often say to my colleagues and co-workers that we must never forget that we are just passing through, and some do so more quickly than others. Our mandate is for a very specific length of time.
We must, during this mandate, keep the promises and commitments made to the voters. We must deliver the goods in the sense of doing what has to be done within the allotted time frame, bearing in mind that our time here must be time spent doing good work, which means working energetically and steadfastly. We are here for three, four or five years, but we must put in quality time here. We feel that this reflection I am sharing with this House on behalf of the Official Opposition is a fundamental one.
Second, retirement age. Obviously, as we consider the various options, we can see that several different plans are in place in our society. In some professions, retirement age has already been set at 50 or 55 years of age. We know for example, that in the police force, civil service or Armed Forces, you become pensionable at 50. It is important to point out that serious thought should be given to the age issue, on the basis of current developments and what is currently offered in our society in terms of quality.
Members of Parliament, as it turns out, often launch their parliamentary career at a time in their lives when they are at their best in terms of energy. Age data show that indeed a great many of our elected representatives are at the peak of their form, at the peak of their capacity, which does not detract from the skill and quality of younger members or those with a longer experience. But we can see that this is an important time of our lives when we devote to Parliament energies that could effectively been put to use in a career in some other field, like the one we left to come here, one we are dedicated to and may return to when we are done here. But at this important time when we devote ourselves to public management, to the development and
advancement of our society, we do so with all our energies, in the prime of our life.
So, this is food for thought at this important time when members of Parliament devote time and energy to the state and to social development.
I would add that a political career often interrupts a person's significant contributions to existing pension plans. That is why we must provide members with benefits that are at least as good as those they left behind. It is a matter of fairness. We are not saying that members must be paid handsomely and receive endless benefits. Members must not come here feeling that they will hit the jackpot in four or six years with a good pension whatever their age, that they will be happy to take people's money. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about important elements in members' lives.
Before coming here, all members of this House already had their own careers in the private sector or in business, industry, professional services, education, health, etc. They had their own lives but they decided to get involved in politics, the vast majority of them, I am sure, to make a contribution to and benefit society through a political party by participating in the legislative and public administration process. Their previous lives, careers and pension contributions cannot be dismissed out of hand. They should in fairness be taken into consideration.
For all the reasons I just listed, the Official Opposition urges all members to continue to work on pension reform without overlooking any of these elements. In conclusion, I reiterate that we are opposed to this motion as long as the alignment of pensions on private sector plans does not take into account all the elements I referred to earlier involving members' responsibilities, precarious position and previous entitlements. Pensions cannot simply be aligned on the private sector as if by magic; a comprehensive review and clear reference points are needed.
Of course, the Official Opposition rejects this motion but urges everyone to continue working on pension reform, keeping in mind the two important factors we recognize. First, the age at which members can collect pensions. We do not feel that pensions are a privilege to which we are entitled at any age in defiance of societal norms. That is something we recognize. Second, the issue of multiple pensions. We find it unacceptable that someone can retire from a job and receive a pension, then turn around and get rehired. We are against this practice. In our opinion, these two elements should be an important part of pension reform. To achieve a truly comprehensive pension reform that is fair to all elected officials, be they men or women, we need a very clear guide to the fairness criteria leading to a real reform.
